Cont: Brilliant Light Power Going To Market - Free Energy Generator Part 3

[RecoveringYuppy]

Still we can deduce the power output within reason when combined with information from other videos.

No, of course you can't deduce that. It's completely obvious you can't get information from those videos. Those other videos all come from the same lying fraudster. You really seem to be stuck on stupid in this matter. All of the claims you cite come from the same source who is known to be liar. And you, yourself, constantly lie to us by saying there is independent confirmation when there isn't.

You invested a lot of time in guaranteeing that no one will believe your unsubstantiated opinion. So has Mills. Nothing will matter until you show actual independent verification from a reputable source.

BTW we're coming up on one of your failed predictions. And, of course, we're just ending 2018 where Mills failed to do the things he promised a year ago for 2018. How do you explain that failure. A year ago Mills showed picture of alleged hydrino compounds in his lab. He promised to show them to the world. He didn't. And it's a complete no-brainer that the reason he didn't do it is because he is lying about having those compounds.

So markie, what excuse do you want to make up for Mills? How did he succeed at failing at what should have been such a simple thing?

 

[JeanTate]

Missed this one. For sure I have failed, and so largely have you guys, except perhaps HappySkeptic.

Um, you're reversing the burden of proof ... you're the one with a weird, left-field idea (we are just skeptics).

It's a matter of talking past each other and making unspoken assumptions. For instance : If I presumed and imagined a scenario where the negative shell was somehow inherently rigid and unmoveable and static, then yes indeed a proton would float around within the shell without any location preference. You guys are presuming and imagining such a shell, while I am not. My shell has no self interaction and would collapse into the proton. It doesn't collapse however because it has orbital tangental velocity, and by the laws of orbital mechanics it has to remain in 'orbit' at a particular distance from the proton, a distance dependent on its velocity. Not only that, the orbital velocity is declared to be inviolable, as a boundary condition. So if the electron shell is mildly perturbed the electron velocity must remain the same, and so by orbital mechanics its distance from the nucleus must remain the same. This means that if the electron is mildly perturbed the entire atom is perturbed and moves. Only when the disturbance to the shell exceeds the electromagnetic force between the proton and electron can the electron's orbit be broken and the electron escape the proton.

(my hilite)

It's good that you're still trying to communicate your idea.

However, in this case, I think you have simply repeated your (rather huge) misunderstanding of classical physics, in a slightly different way. Or, bluntly, you have failed, yet again.

Have you considered taking a physics course, at a community college say, or auditing one at a local university? Alternatively, you could ask sensible questions - about shells etc - over in Physics Forums; they have a very explicit education/help mandate (though I'd advise you not to mention Mills etc, they also have a strict policy of not tolerating nonsense).

 

[markie]

What "information" would that be?

Do the "other videos" have the same, or similar, provenance?

What metadata accompanies those?

What do you mean - objectively and quantitatively - by "within reason"?

Both the mass of the metal Suncell containment walls and the average temperature of those walls can be reasonably inferred. The time to attain those temperature can be reasonably inferred. This is not difficult.

BTW I have ignored radiative heat losses to the air, which, since the power dissipated to the surroundings is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature, would be substantial. The result would be a significant underestimation of the power heating the walls from within.

 

[markie]

Um, you're reversing the burden of proof ... you're the one with a weird, left-field idea (we are just skeptics).

(my hilite)

It's good that you're still trying to communicate your idea.

However, in this case, I think you have simply repeated your (rather huge) misunderstanding of classical physics, in a slightly different way. Or, bluntly, you have failed, yet again.

Have you considered taking a physics course, at a community college say, or auditing one at a local university? Alternatively, you could ask sensible questions - about shells etc - over in Physics Forums; they have a very explicit education/help mandate (though I'd advise you not to mention Mills etc, they also have a strict policy of not tolerating nonsense).

Most people here would know that the orbital altitude of a satellite is dependent on its orbital velocity. Apparently you don't. That's OK.

 

[JeanTate]

Both the mass of the metal Suncell containment walls and the average temperature of those walls can be reasonably inferred. The time to attain those temperature can be reasonably inferred. This is not difficult.

<snip>

How?

As in, how can either "be reasonably inferred"?

 

[JeanTate]

Most people here would know that the orbital altitude of a satellite is dependent on its orbital velocity. Apparently you don't. That's OK.

Strange ... here was I thinking you were referring to a shell ("My shell has no self interaction and would collapse into the proton. It doesn't collapse however ...").

 

[Red Baron Farms]

For sure I have failed, and so largely have you guys ... It's a matter of talking past each other and making unspoken assumptions... snip

Actually you have that completely wrong Markie. We have nothing to sell here. Nor is it our job in this forum to educate the unwilling to listen.

Those who actually want to learn will find this forum a tremendous resource though.

What you missed however, is that we have no horse in the race. There is no reason or way for us to either prove hydrinos exist or don't exist.

All we can do is show that neither you nor Mills has met the burden of proof for what you advocate.

I understand this can sometimes be somewhat confusing, for example when I claim it's all burning metals and/or hydrogen embrittlement. Keep in mind I really have no idea if this is true or not. All I really know is that nothing Mills published indicates he properly controlled for these and other possibilities to explain what he thinks is anomalous. So when I say things like this it is a challenge to prove me wrong by putting in the effort to eliminate these and other mundane explanations.

It's not our job to prove them, it is your job to eliminate them as alternate possible explanations.

Thus we neither win nor fail actually. Just waiting for you and/or Mills to stop failing. It could be a very long wait indeed.

 

[wollery]

Most people here would know that the orbital altitude of a satellite is dependent on its orbital velocity. Apparently you don't. That's OK.

Just wondering, do you know what Jean Tate does for a living?

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

 

[hecd2]

Missed this one. For sure I have failed, and so largely have you guys, except perhaps HappySkeptic. It's a matter of talking past each other and making unspoken assumptions. For instance : If I presumed and imagined a scenario where the negative shell was somehow inherently rigid and unmoveable and static, then yes indeed a proton would float around within the shell without any location preference. You guys are presuming and imagining such a shell, while I am not. My shell has no self interaction and would collapse into the proton. It doesn't collapse however because it has orbital tangental velocity, and by the laws of orbital mechanics it has to remain in 'orbit' at a particular distance from the proton, a distance dependent on its velocity. Not only that, the orbital velocity is declared to be inviolable, as a boundary condition. So if the electron shell is mildly perturbed the electron velocity must remain the same, and so by orbital mechanics its distance from the nucleus must remain the same. This means that if the electron is mildly perturbed the entire atom is perturbed and moves. Only when the disturbance to the shell exceeds the electromagnetic force between the proton and electron can the electron's orbit be broken and the electron escape the proton.

Seems like you missed this one too:

Whatever causes the shell from collapsing, whether it is tangential velocity at every point (and for the moment we’ll ignore the fact that the tangential velocity cannot be non-zero at every point on the sphere according to the hairy ball theorem, or every cow has at least one cow-lick, or any well behaved vector field on a 2-sphere has at least one zero), or whether it is because the shell is rigid, is irrelevant to the force experienced by the proton. That force is zero at all locations within the sphere, and therefore there is no constraining force on the proton and it is free to move within the sphere. For the scenario where the tangential velocity prevents the shell from collapsing (ie the shell is not rigid), a non-central location of the proton will exert a non-uniform force per unit area on the shell, which will cause it to distort and collapse into the proton. The non-rigid, deformable orbit sphere supported by orbital mechanics is even more unstable than a rigid shell.

In either case, the orbitsphere concept fails.

 

[Darat]

Both the mass of the metal Suncell containment walls and the average temperature of those walls can be reasonably inferred. The time to attain those temperature can be reasonably inferred. This is not difficult.



BTW I have ignored radiative heat losses to the air, which, since the power dissipated to the surroundings is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature, would be substantial. The result would be a significant underestimation of the power heating the walls from within.

And how do you deduce the input energy?

 

[HappySkeptic99]

Missed this one. For sure I have failed, and so largely have you guys, except perhaps HappySkeptic. It's a matter of talking past each other and making unspoken assumptions. For instance : If I presumed and imagined a scenario where the negative shell was somehow inherently rigid and unmoveable and static, then yes indeed a proton would float around within the shell without any location preference. You guys are presuming and imagining such a shell, while I am not.

That's a good start. It has nothing to do with immovable and static -- it only has to do with the shape remaining a spherical shell.

My shell has no self interaction and would collapse into the proton. It doesn't collapse however because it has orbital tangental velocity, and by the laws of orbital mechanics it has to remain in 'orbit' at a particular distance from the proton, a distance dependent on its velocity.

We have gone over this before. "orbits" are for an independent body moving around the nucleus. If the "electron" were a billion individual pieces, separately orbiting the nucleus, then they would indeed be subject to orbital mechanics.

Then you would have a host of new problems, like how is the total energy conserved when the pieces are independent? If independent, they would not end up in a shell, but instead a cloud, each with varying energy and ellipsoidal shape. If not independent, you need to invent magicalforces that pull the errant pieces back into a shell shape over time.

However, Mills does not propose independent bodies. Instead, he imagines a set of superconducting hoops, which themselves have no mass, but on which the "pieces" of the electron move. Mills does not state the properties of this the hoops (elasticity, rigidity, etc.), so we can assume they have none. They are simply a way for the electron "pieces" to go around in a loop. I think of it as water in a massless and infinitely-stretchy hula-hoop.

We are told that the electron density around the loop is constant, but I see no reason for this to be the case, unless, like water, the electron "pieces" are not compressible around the hoop.

Yes, the tangential motion of the electron "pieces" in the hula-hoop are what keeps everything from collapsing. We assume the hoop can expand and contract at need. The problem is, that neither a deformable loop, nor a rigid loop (with the exception of the one precessing case you found earlier) with a uniform electron-piece density around it, can be in a stable orbit. If multiple loops make a shell, then the shell does even worse at being stable. A rigid shell has no restoring force for the central proton, and a deformable shell (which I think it must be) is not stable either.

The problem is the inability for the "pieces" to change radius and phase independently. They are like pieces of a rotating linked chain, which is not stable once the attractive force goes off center. The pieces of a linked chain do not orbit.

And, frankly, how do these individual loops all share pieces of the overall energy under perturbation? There is no equation that gives stability or explains the dynamic behavior.

Not only that, the orbital velocity is declared to be inviolable, as a boundary condition. So if the electron shell is mildly perturbed the electron velocity must remain the same, and so by orbital mechanics its distance from the nucleus must remain the same. This means that if the electron is mildly perturbed the entire atom is perturbed and moves. Only when the disturbance to the shell exceeds the electromagnetic force between the proton and electron can the electron's orbit be broken and the electron escape the proton.

What you are describing makes sense to you, but doesn't really make sense. This is a classical situation. In real orbits, a perturbation causes a change, until a new equilibrium is found (a new elliptical orbit). In QM, a perturbation causes a chance of energy transfer, but the wave equation is quite stable (wave diffraction creates a new stable wave, and some entanglement with the perturbation). The orbitsphere, under perturbation, will not be stable.

 

[JeanTate]

I have a concrete suggestion which may help you, markie.

Consider a point charge, and a rigid, charged ring (an infinitely thin, perfect circle). Let the total charge on the ring be equal to that of the point charge. Let the charge on the ring be distributed uniformly. Assume no other forces. Assume the ring and point are not moving, relative to each other. And so on.

The aim is to calculate the net force of the ring on the point (and vice versa).

Start with the point being in the same plane as the ring, so you need consider 2D only.

Take the case of the point being outside the ring. What is the force between the point and a point on the ring? It will, of course, be a vector.

I urge you to do this yourself, markie. If you need help, just ask.

 

[The Man]

Interesting. It looks like you have escaped the infamous collapse of the wave function and can surf indefinitely.

You both have a point. He is correct that one can view the wavefunction as "all there is", and any property of the quanta, such as a particle position, as a result of projecting onto a basis that looks at position. Since any measurement is merely an entanglement with measurement apparatus (which itself has wave properties), one can view the whole thing as waves.

You are also right, Markie, that collapse has to happen sometime. However, no-one knows what that "time" is. Theoretically, it is entanglement forever, which seems false, as it would mean that all potential past histories are real at the same time (for instance, there is both a moon and not a moon). We have no idea the cause of collapse. That is the one problem of QM, and I believe that QM is incomplete because of it. Still, despite all attempts to make QM more "classical", no-one has succeeded. Not even Randell Mills.

Also a point markie may not be aware of is that "collapse of the wave function" is a misnomer. The wavefunction can become more defined about a particular value but it never 'collapses' in the way (no longer a wave function) that markie's inferred lack of surfing ability is intended to represent.

In fact in becoming more defined about a particular position (a more defined central peak) a wave packet becomes less defined (requires a greater spread) in frequency components that comprise that packet. Similarly a more defined energy (more confined frequency spread) results in a broader less defined peak (less well defined position for the packet). So in one aspect becoming more defined, or 'collapsing' another aspect must become less defined, broader in scope or in other words be expanded.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_packet

 

[The Man]

You are correct given your understanding of 'net force', both when the proton is in the centre and off centre. So for instance if the proton were closer to one side, the flux would be higher at a given point on that side of shell compared to a given point on the opposite side. It might appear then that it would exert more pull on that side. However, because the far side has more surface area, the combined flux on the far side perfectly (as it turns out) balances the smaller and closer and higher flux side. (Note: this is valid for a sphere, not a circle.)

That said, I don't want people to misapprehend that this kind of 'zero net force' translates to no force at all. Rather, the proton is exerting an inward force on the shell. What prevents the shell from collapsing inward is its tangental velocity, which, given the shell's mass, translates to a balancing outward centrifugal 'force'. By orbital mechanics, it is the shell's constant tangental velocity that requires that it is at a fixed distance from the proton. This is the reason for the proton's "preferred" position in the centre, as I've mentioned before. So in summary it is the attractive force of the proton on the electron shell, combined with the tangental velocity of the shell, which fixes the proton in the centre. The shell theorem can take a rest.

More nonsense. Whatever causes the shell from collapsing, whether it is tangential velocity at every point (and for the moment we’ll ignore the fact that the tangential velocity cannot be non-zero at every point on the sphere according to the hairy ball theorem, or every cow has at least one cow-lick, or any well behaved vector field on a 2-sphere has at least one zero), or whether it is because the shell is rigid, is irrelevant to the force experienced by the proton. That force is zero at all locations within the sphere, and therefore there is no constraining force on the proton and it is free to move within the sphere. For the scenario where the tangential velocity prevents the shell from collapsing (ie the shell is not rigid), a non-central location of the proton will exert a non-uniform force per unit area on the shell, which will cause it to distort and collapse into the proton. The non-rigid, deformable orbit sphere supported by orbital mechanics is even more unstable than a rigid shell.

In either case, the orbitsphere concept fails.

Not just that hecd2 but here by "a balancing outward centrifugal 'force'" markie is claiming the centripetal force is 'balanced' by an opposing force. Hence no net centripetal force results to accelerate the "shell" towards the center. All points, parts or whatever on the shell would just proceed at their tangential velocity away from the center.

 

[optiongeek]

I have a concrete suggestion which may help you, markie.

Consider a point charge, and a rigid, charged ring (an infinitely thin, perfect circle). Let the total charge on the ring be equal to that of the point charge. Let the charge on the ring be distributed uniformly. Assume no other forces. Assume the ring and point are not moving, relative to each other. And so on.

The aim is to calculate the net force of the ring on the point (and vice versa).

Start with the point being in the same plane as the ring, so you need consider 2D only.

Take the case of the point being outside the ring. What is the force between the point and a point on the ring? It will, of course, be a vector.

I urge you to do this yourself, markie. If you need help, just ask.

I take your point. However, what happens when we take your starting condition (with ring in the XY plane), and then imagine an infinitesimal perturbation of the central charge in the +Z direction. What would the force on the central charge be now? Where would the central charge want to move to minimize energy?

 

[The Man]

Sure there is reason. Presumably you've seen the video where the plasma has broken through the wall of the cell, or another video where they had to shut it down before the wall was breached. The wall has to be substantial. And look at the lip of the cell that reinforces the cell all around the four vertical walls. That is a good indicator of how thick the wall is. It looks around 1 cm to me but perhaps it may be 1/4 inch, which would be .635 cm.

Technically no, particular for a deep drawn shell. Depending on how the blank is made the lip may have no indicative relation to the wall thickness.


http://www.amalco.com/deepdrawing.html

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

And look at the lip of the cell that reinforces the cell all around the four vertical walls. That is a good indicator of how thick the wall is. It looks around 1 cm to me but perhaps it may be 1/4 inch, which would be .635 cm.

That is probably a deliberate attempt to deceive you about what the device is. The guy is a con man after all.

 

[JeanTate]

I have a concrete suggestion which may help you, markie.

Consider a point charge, and a rigid, charged ring (an infinitely thin, perfect circle). Let the total charge on the ring be equal to that of the point charge. Let the charge on the ring be distributed uniformly. Assume no other forces. Assume the ring and point are not moving, relative to each other. And so on.

The aim is to calculate the net force of the ring on the point (and vice versa).

Start with the point being in the same plane as the ring, so you need consider 2D only.

Take the case of the point being outside the ring. What is the force between the point and a point on the ring? It will, of course, be a vector.

I urge you to do this yourself, markie. If you need help, just ask.

I take your point. However, what happens when we take your starting condition (with ring in the XY plane), and then imagine an infinitesimal perturbation of the central charge in the +Z direction. What would the force on the central charge be now? Where would the central charge want to move to minimize energy?

One thing at a time, optiongeek.

If you'd also like to have a go at writing down an expression for the force between the point and a point on the ring, please go ahead!

Side note: long time readers of my posts here will have noticed that I often do not provide a detailed explanation of why I think someone presenting a "left field" astronomy/astrophysics/physics is wrong; rather, I ask questions which I hope will lead the proponent of such ideas to think about what they write, and consider factors that are important (but which they may not have even known about). Sadly, not many such proponents even try to answer my questions, let alone learn anything from their efforts to do so. I think that if they did make serious efforts, they'd learn a lot, possibly even more than what they might learn from reading the excellent, detailed posts by hecd2, RC, The Man, W.D.Clinger, and many others.

 

[The Man]

Missed this one. For sure I have failed, and so largely have you guys, except perhaps HappySkeptic. It's a matter of talking past each other and making unspoken assumptions. For instance : If I presumed and imagined a scenario where the negative shell was somehow inherently rigid and unmoveable and static, then yes indeed a proton would float around within the shell without any location preference. You guys are presuming and imagining such a shell, while I am not. My shell has no self interaction and would collapse into the proton. It doesn't collapse however because it has orbital tangental velocity, and by the laws of orbital mechanics it has to remain in 'orbit' at a particular distance from the proton, a distance dependent on its velocity. Not only that, the orbital velocity is declared to be inviolable, as a boundary condition. So if the electron shell is mildly perturbed the electron velocity must remain the same, and so by orbital mechanics its distance from the nucleus must remain the same. This means that if the electron is mildly perturbed the entire atom is perturbed and moves. Only when the disturbance to the shell exceeds the electromagnetic force between the proton and electron can the electron's orbit be broken and the electron escape the proton.

No, nothing about "orbital mechanics" requires that something "has to remain in 'orbit' at a particular distance from the proton". Also that a centripetal force is, well, certiptial (always directed towards the center) means it can not be the source of the lateral components (tangential parts) of the object's velocity. In order to orbit an object already has to have the tangential velocity and the centripetal force just redirects that vector.

 

[The Man]

Most people here would know that the orbital altitude of a satellite is dependent on its orbital velocity. Apparently you don't. That's OK.

What gave it that "orbital velocity"? Certainly not simply its "altitude". Otherwise just throwing something in the air would cause it to orbit. Most here already understand that even if you don't.